Remove the law 9.7 sexual offenses

[Auris]

Description of the idea: remove 9.7 as sexual RP is already against the rules making the law obsolete

Why should this be added? (pros): cleans up the lawbook a bit

What negatives could this have? (cons): none

*Other additions: [list here]

*Images: [useful images]

 

[speklolly02]

I think the negatives will be that a lot of people will be a lot more sexual during RP situations and I dont think thats a good optic...

 

[Acerius]

I think the negatives will be that a lot of people will be a lot more sexual during RP situations and I dont think thats a good optic...

All forms of sexual roleplay have been banned following a significant change in 2.8, in light of the new prominence of safeguarding and protecting the younger members of the community.

I can see the logic here; by removing the law completely it means that these situations most definitely fall under the Rules for staff to deal with rather than having to debate whether it is an IC or OOC issue.

 

[rogue]

in-character is separate from OOC (in theory) so the law is essentially a failsafe

 

[Leo]

in-character is separate from OOC (in theory) so the law is essentially a failsafe

There shouldn't need to be a failsafe which Acerius explained above

 

[Acerius]

in-character is separate from OOC (in theory) so the law is essentially a failsafe

Rules are meant to take precedent over the Laws, so if there was any form of failsafe mechanism it should be the other way around. It is quite clear that the direction we are moving in is ensuring everyone, regardless of age, can be safe and have an enjoyable experience. As such, safeguarding should be every staff members responsibility and not simply just that of the safeguarding leads.

Having a Law that covers something which is explicitly explained within the Rules gives rise to potential confusion/lack of clarity over how it should be dealt with. By removing the Law, it makes certain that anything pertaining to sexual/erotic roleplay is always dealt with by staff in an OOC manner as opposed to PLPD dealing with it IC.

 

[nutrient10]

Just because government employees have to follow all laws according to rule 4.1 doesn't mean the law can't be enforced on them and it's only a staff issue. Corporals/supervisors will still enforce the law on government employees.

Like @rogue said, it is basically a failsafe at the moment, even if this isn't intentional, as we are still in character whilst roleplaying. Imagine someone exploiting this when there are no staff members on or staff are extremely busy, police would not be able to do anything about it whatsoever and will literally just have to allow whatever is going on, no matter how extreme the actions may be, as long as the actions don't fall under other offences.

The law is fine. I see no logical reason to remove it. Yes, it won't be enforced much due to the updated server rule, but it should still exist. It would be illogical to remove supervisor powers to detain and charge other officers because 'rule 4.1 says they must follow the law'. The situation should ideally continue in character, unless extremely serious, and you should then inform a staff member when practicable.

 

[Acerius]

Just because government employees have to follow all laws according to rule 4.1 doesn't mean the law can't be enforced on them and it's only a staff issue. Corporals/supervisors will still enforce the law on government employees.

Like @rogue said, it is basically a failsafe at the moment, even if this isn't intentional, as we are still in character whilst roleplaying. Imagine someone exploiting this when there are no staff members on or staff are extremely busy, police would not be able to do anything about it whatsoever and will literally just have to allow whatever is going on, no matter how extreme the actions may be, as long as the actions don't fall under other offences.

The law is fine. I see no logical reason to remove it. Yes, it won't be enforced much due to the updated server rule, but it should still exist. It would be illogical to remove supervisor powers to detain and charge other officers because 'rule 4.1 says they must follow the law'. The situation should ideally continue in character, unless extremely serious, and you should then inform a staff member when practicable.

Despite what I said previously, I can now comfortably say I completely agree with you. After discussions with yourself and @Dank in the shoutbox it has become clear to me that I did not think of this issue in the manner you have explained. After reading and appreciating what both of you had to say, I am changing my outlook on this and see no reason as to why the law should be removed.

 

[Bnjemann]

You can still break 9.7 without directly violating 2.8 though??? The law should remain as giving players in character grounds for dealing with 2.8 breakages as you can’t just deal with sexual assault by saying “It’s against the rules” and this won’t invalidate the performed act as invalid RP.

If I were to RDM my friend then surely I’d receive legal action from the police for doing so. Just because somethings against the rules doesn’t mean laws shouldn’t exist covering it from an IC point of view. If I run red at intersection, I’m not going to lobby to have the law exempt the intersection under the traffic light laws as there is rules against it.

A Star Wars imperial RP server I played once forbode ERP, yet still gave Stormtroopers and officers legal grounds to execute people for sexual offences. Same with the majority of Half Life 2 RP servers.

 

[Clarky]

This will cause humans to go extinct, you could say this is a good thing but no.

 

[John Daymon]

It sucks cus I wanna pee on my victims I rob Change 2.8!!!